[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]
Re: Ceratosauria vs. Neotheropoda?
In a message dated 11/22/09 12:18:43 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
<< Even Paul (2008) is somewhat guilty of this, in comparing the evolution
of 'iguanodonts' (a grade) with that of hadrosaurids (a clade), as if the
two groups represent separate halves of a whole (Hadrosauriformes), rather
than one being a subset of the other. >>
Nein, nein, nein. Hadrosauriformes are not a subset of iguanodonts, both
are subsets of iguanodontoids. What we have now is a situation in which your
hadrosaurs have series of formal names pertinent to them alone because of the
accident of their being derived within the clade, while the more basal
iguanodontoids are stuck with no formal designations because doing so would
result is gasp and horror paraphyletic groups which are phylocode evil for no
good reason. Having just finished up the dinosaur field guide I cannot
overemphasize how this is a taxonomic mess that will befuddle the public.